DZ
DefZone.Net

Kien thuc cong nghe & giai tri

  1. Home
  2. Wiki
icon
Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.


CFO

[edit]

Per https://www.wsj.com/articles/humana-tapsglobal-infrastructure-partners-finance-chiefas-cfo-eeb5000b, the CFO has changed. The infobox should be list the new CFO, if the CFO entry is not removed. The paragraph currently mentioning Diamond should probably be trimmed back. If Diamond remains mentioned in the article body, it should be indicated that she is no longer in the position as of 2025. - Hipal (talk) 20:23, 11 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs special cleanup

[edit]

WikiProject Louisville 		Cleanup Requested by WikiProject Louisville
WikiProject Louisville has identified Humana as having an unusually high number of issues, and we could very much use editors' assistance in addressing them. These issues are normally noted by the presence of various cleanup banners and in-line templates as well as the page's placement in hidden categories such as "Articles with unsourced statements...". To see these categories, make sure Show hidden categories is checked in your Preferences. Thank you for your help!

Stefen 𝕋ower's got the power!!1! Gab • Gruntwerk 02:36, 12 September 2025 (UTC)[reply]

2013 promotional content tag

[edit]

Hello! I'm E, a representative for Humana. I saw that this article had a promotional tag on it that is over a decade old. Specifically, it mentions "removing promotional language and inappropriate external links"

I looked into the history and the tag seems to be pertaining to an old "Humana's Prescription Home Delivery" section with a link to the service both in the reference and in the External links section. You can see it here

That section and link have since been removed and editors will see the page overall has been substantially changed since the tag was added in 2013. Would an editor remove this tag? Because of my conflict of interest, I will not make direct changes to the article. Thanks! E Humana (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why the tag was added. There's no edit summary nor corresponding talk page discussion.
Skimming the current references, it appears the article is heavily dependent upon press releases and similarly poor and promotional sources. Given this, the template still seems to fit, specifically, adding encyclopedic text written from a neutral point of view. --Hipal (talk) 21:34, 7 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request Oct 21

[edit]

Thanks Hipal I see what you mean! I did some research and found sourcing more in line with what Wikipedia requires. The draft can be found in my user space, a quick breakdown is as follows:
Let me know if you have any thoughts, thanks! E Humana (talk) 14:52, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. That's a lot to review. Glancing over it, a lot of the references look to be press releases or the like. It will take some careful reviewing to go over them all. --Hipal (talk) 15:49, 21 October 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hipal! Let me know if you have any questions. I know it is a lot so I am happy to provide clarity. E Humana (talk) 19:53, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If you could identify any that might be press releases or something similar, that would help. --Hipal (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal, when I was looking for sources, I was avoiding press releases and stuck to items with bylines when possible.
That being said, I looked at these closer and have a few notes on them for you to consider
  • Sources #4, #5, #6 link the announcements but don't attribute the content to it.
  • Source #3 credits Bloomberg
  • Source #8 and #18 have a staff writer byline but does look like it could have content lifted from a PR, but no attribution to one
  • Source #13 uses a quote from a press release
  • Source #14 and #15 are from the Fortune 500 website (which appears to be standard practice Fortune rankings)
  • Source #16 and #17 are from the race's published results (which appears to be standard practice for this type of information)
  • Sources #1-2, #7, #9-12, all appear reliable to me
With the exception of #14-17, the articles all at least have a staff writer byline, showing some level of fact checking and editorial oversight.
Happy to continue the discussion! Let me know what you think, E Humana (talk) 14:20, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not getting back to this sooner. I'm afraid that I still have little time to put into this, nor do I expect that will change in the coming months.
Re PGA: Are there sources that can verify that it is ongoing? Without them, the statement fails verification.
Re Avality, mobileStorm, Enclara Healthcare, etc : Why are they important to Humana?
While we do need to make sure references are reliable, we also need to make sure they indicate that the information is WP:DUE and encyclopedic. --Hipal (talk) 19:07, 2 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hipal Good questions!
Re PGA: That is a good point and you are right about the point in time, since there is sourcing to show more concrete dates. Here is a better proposal:
Re Avality, mobileStorm, Enclara Healthcare, etc: I was looking more at sourcing than considering WP:DUE. As for WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC, I do think acquisitions, subsidiaries, divisions etc. do have enough knowledge value to warrant inclusion.
Let me know if you have any other questions! I understand you're busy and this will take a closer eye, I will just check in intermittently like I have been to see if you had any new thoughts. Thanks, E Humana (talk) 22:05, 11 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]